Search Evidence

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_traffic

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads one explicit search traffic snapshot from Google Search Console, Bing, GA4, or CSV, returning rows for a URL and table; missing rows are reported as unknown.

Instructions

Read one explicit snapshot; missing rows are unknown.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_traffic"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`url`	No
`limit`	No
`table`	No	pages
`cursor`	No
`source`	No	gsc
`snapshot_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`data`	No
`error`	No
`warnings`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds a useful caveat that missing rows are unknown, which aids interpretation, but it does not explain pagination behavior, snapshot requirements, or how source/table affect results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The sentence is short and front-loads the verb, but it is cryptic rather than appropriately sized for a six-parameter data tool. Under-specification, not conciseness, is the dominant issue.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although annotations and an output schema exist, the description does not explain how to choose a snapshot, source, or table, how cursor pagination works, or what the missing-rows caveat implies operationally. For a tool with six undocumented schema parameters, this leaves major gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate but barely does. 'One explicit snapshot' vaguely gestures at snapshot_id, but url, limit, table, cursor, and source are left entirely undocumented semantically.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says it reads one explicit snapshot, but it never states that this is traffic/search data, what sources or tables it covers, or how it differs from siblings like search_status or search_compare. 'Snapshot' is vague enough that an agent cannot confidently select this tool from its name and one sentence.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the other search_* tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'explicit snapshot' hints that snapshot_id may matter, but the agent is left to infer it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server